Shock, horror! Canadian gamer averts school shooting - mass media reports nothing.

[Jason]

According to the Vancouver Sun and gaming website Dualshockers (http://dualshockers.com/2010/02/gamer-ends-attempted-school-shooting/), a Canadian gamer may have averted a potential high-school shooting in Texas.
Apparently, he was in a game on Xbox Live with a gamer from San Antonio, TX who was unhappy about failing grades and was planning on taking it out on his classmates. While the potential killer ran off a list of names, the Canadian gamer made a note of them and contacted the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who in conjunction with Microsoft managed to locate this idiot and pass his details to local law enforcement, who quickly detained the guy.

Of course, there's a fair chance that there may not have been any threat at all - perhaps it was the famous 'internet bravado' kicking in on the part of our 'shooter', but there was no way of knowing for sure, and had those threats been serious, we could have seen yet another tragedy in an American high school. Of course, you won't see this kind of story in the mainstream media - firstly because it doesn't involve a tragic loss of life or celebrity, and secondly because it doesn't fit with the media's pre-formed stereotype of gamers - irresponsible losers who are simply wasting their lives.

As a final note, perhaps our budding gunman should have a think - if your grades aren't what they should be, maybe instead of blowing half your class away with daddy's assault rifle, you should get your ass off the Xbox and do some studying?

[MyNameDidntFit]

... I'm trying to take this seriously... but... mounties... they just put the lumberjack song in my head...

>.>

Ah. Anyway. I wonder what became of the wannabe Columbiner?

[Jason]

...and pass his details to local law enforcement, who quickly detained the guy.

I imagine he's being shown the error of his ways right about now.

[MyNameDidntFit]

I mean after that. It's not like they can exactly do anything based on the report of a single person over the internet -- even with chat logs or something.

[Betty]

still, even simply saying something will to be taken seriously. regardless.

I heard a story-some girl in muh clan- was being harassed by a bunch of guys in a lobby who told her to go kill herself and she said 'Right, maybe i should then' and a few hours later the cops showed up at her house for a suicide warning.

the internet is crazycrazycrazy.

[Konrad]

Sure they can. With chat-logs of somebody threatening other people with murder? That implies intent and is very punishable indeed. The least he can expect is a visit or two to the psychologist.

[MyNameDidntFit]

If chat logs are considered reliable evidence, I'm Elvis.

[Konrad]

Just like email, chat logs can be used as evidence in a court of law. Though I seriously doubt they're enough to prove someone guilty. They're certainly enough to spark worry, and if they find anything else those logs will be used against him.

[Jason]

If chat logs are considered reliable evidence, I'm Elvis.

http://www.digital-evidence.com/news/case_001.asp

Do you do requests? :D

[MyNameDidntFit]

Oh, wow. And here I was thinking that the justice system had some shred of credulity to it... guess I'm mistaken.

[Jason]

Look, I know that as an Australian you're used to being on the receiving end of the justice system, but it is generally a good idea to follow it where practical. :p

[MyNameDidntFit]

Unfortunately, the use of chat logs and such as evidence does not strike me as practical.

I simply can't bring myself to consider them reliable enough to be taken seriously.

[Jason]

Assuming it comes from a neutral third party (in this case I guess it would be Microsoft), how is it any different to a recorded phone conversation? The only difference is that it's written down rather than spoken.

[Konrad]

It's probably the whole 'internet is srsbsns" thing. Whereas two people talking to each other on the phone are probably not spouting random angry shit, it's very popular on the internet. By the way Corey, there are three randomly placed but well concealed bombs in your room. You have 24 hours, good luck.

But words are words, no matter how they were muttered and hold the exact same weight. The only fault of Chat logs is that it's slightly more difficult to prove you were responsible for writing it.

[Landy]

Killing sells, thus why the media loves to cover it. I'm pretty sure that a lot of the killings could be avoided if it hadn't been blown up of proportions in the media in the first place.

[Konrad]

If he hadn't done anything the news would say: "Gamer the cause of tragedy - knew about it, said nothing."

[MyNameDidntFit]

Assuming it comes from a neutral third party (in this case I guess it would be Microsoft), how is it any different to a recorded phone conversation? The only difference is that it's written down rather than spoken.
Voices and hand-written documents can be reliably verified to an extent. Which is to say that it takes a hell of a lot more effort to make someone's voice or handwriting say something than it does to make generic, impersonal text say something.

By the way Corey, there are three randomly placed but well concealed bombs in your room. You have 24 hours, good luck.
*considers calling the police*

[Jason]

Which is to say that it takes a hell of a lot more effort to make someone's voice or handwriting say something than it does to make generic, impersonal text say something.

Well I'd assume that to access his username, he'd have been required to enter some kind of password that presumably only he knew. An IP address would be able to confirm the location from where the entries were made (just so he can't use the 'I was hacked' defence), so in some ways you could argue that it's potentially just as accurate - you've confirmed the location the threats were made from (more than likely the home address in this case) and the individual account with a password known only to the potential offender.

[MyNameDidntFit]

Masking your IP address is simple as eating cake for anyone who cares to Google how. When the message was entered via a proxy, or other IP masking methods, who is to say who it was that sent it?

Not only is it that one account that can be used. Should I wish I could go now and create a Facebook, forum, GFWL, Steam, or any other manner of public account and enter my details as those of another. When I then proceed to post something from a masked IP, how do you prove that I am not who I say?

It may just be personal prejudice, but I cannot bring myself to consider the internet as secure enough a medium to be used to ruin, or effectively end, someone's life.

[Jason]

Oh, please - you know as well as I do that with enough determination and the right resources an IP can be traced back to the source. Proxies will fool most basic user-level systems (forum software and so on), but I doubt anyone other than a very experienced high-level hacker would be able to come up with something that could withstand law enforcement-level investigations.

Also, whilst you could create a phony account with the details of someone else, how long do you think that would stand up in an investigation? There's always a paper trail - be it an email address, IP addresses, credit cards... it in this case, it would almost certainly be the Xbox Live account - it would have almost certainly had some kind of credit card used on it at some point - if not directly on Xbox live, then quite possibly on an online store to purchase time cards or MSpoints.

[MyNameDidntFit]

Public wifi, a fresh email address and any payments done via prepaid cards bought with cash -- where do you trace that to?

I do realise that there is the ability to trace pretty much anything on the net. Like I said; call it a personal prejudice, but it's my opinion that the majority of internet content makes for as good evidence as popsticks make skyscrapers.